fix(plugins): sync all 171 plugin SKILL.md files with fixed skills/ versions

Propagates Anti-Patterns sections, description rewrites, Required Inputs
additions, and Quality Checks format fixes from skills/ to matching plugin
SKILL.md copies.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01MuGKn3a3Gbqoe8uM5Lmuqt

plugins/pm-research/skills/clinical-case-summary/SKILL.md

@@ -71,10 +71,17 @@ WARNING: For documentation and educational purposes only. All clinical content m
 - Follow-up plan
 
 ## Quality Checks
-- Patient details fully anonymised
-- Allergies and medications included in handover formats
-- Safety netting included in SOAP plan
-- Disclaimer included
+- [ ] Patient details fully anonymised
+- [ ] Allergies and medications included in handover formats
+- [ ] Safety netting included in SOAP plan
+- [ ] Disclaimer included
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not include any identifiable patient information — full names, dates of birth, NHS or MRN numbers, or specific addresses must be anonymised or replaced with generic identifiers
+- [ ] Do not omit the clinical disclaimer — this output is for documentation and educational purposes only and must not be presented as clinical advice
+- [ ] Do not confuse the SBAR Recommendation with a treatment plan — R is what you need from the recipient, not a full management plan
+- [ ] Do not list differential diagnoses without noting the reasoning for ranking — an unranked list of differentials is not clinically useful
 
 ## Example Trigger Phrases
 - "Write a clinical handover using SBAR for this patient"

plugins/pm-research/skills/literature-review/SKILL.md

@@ -65,6 +65,14 @@ For each paper: internal validity, external validity, bias types, effect size si
 - [ ] Gaps identified — what the field still needs
 - [ ] All claims cited
 
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not summarise papers one by one — evidence must be synthesised thematically across multiple studies, not presented as a sequence of abstracts
+- [ ] Do not omit methodological critique — a literature review that only reports findings without assessing study quality is not a critical review
+- [ ] Do not organise by chronology when thematic organisation is possible — chronological reviews bury the conceptual structure of the field
+- [ ] Do not present contested findings as settled consensus — where evidence is mixed, name both sides and why the evidence diverges
+- [ ] Do not skip the gap analysis — identifying what the field still needs is a core deliverable, not an optional addition
+
 ## Example Trigger Phrases
 - "Write a literature review on [topic]"
 - "Synthesise the evidence on [topic] from these papers: [paste]"

plugins/pm-research/skills/patient-communication/SKILL.md

@@ -92,6 +92,14 @@ Yours sincerely, [Name, Title, Department]
 - [ ] No Latin or acronyms without explanation
 - [ ] Disclaimer that clinical review is required before sending
 
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not use medical jargon without a plain-English explanation — write for the patient, not the clinician
+- [ ] Do not omit a clear "next steps" section — patients must know exactly what to do after reading
+- [ ] Do not produce final content without flagging that clinical review is required before sending
+- [ ] Do not write above a Grade 8 reading level without a compelling reason — accessibility is the default
+- [ ] Do not include Latin abbreviations (e.g. "p.r.n.", "b.d.") without spelling them out — they are not universally understood
+
 ## Example Trigger Phrases
 - "Write a patient letter about [topic]"
 - "Create a patient information leaflet for [procedure]"

plugins/pm-research/skills/research-protocol/SKILL.md

@@ -92,6 +92,14 @@ Qualitative: [Framework — e.g. Braun & Clarke], [quality assurance]
 - [ ] Analysis plan is pre-specified (not "to be determined")
 - [ ] Timeline includes all phases from ethics approval to write-up
 
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not write an analysis plan as "to be determined" — the analysis approach must be pre-specified before data collection
+- [ ] Do not skip the ethical considerations section — all research involving human participants requires ethical review
+- [ ] Do not define research questions so broadly that the study cannot answer them within scope and budget
+- [ ] Do not conflate the research question with the hypothesis — state them separately and clearly
+- [ ] Do not omit sample size justification — an underpowered study wastes resources and produces inconclusive results
+
 ## Example Trigger Phrases
 - "Write a research protocol for [study]"
 - "Help me design a study to investigate [question]"